A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » Aviation Images » Aviation Photos
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

History Channel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 28th 08, 10:34 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
JR[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default History Channel

On Wed, 28 May 2008 02:22:01 GMT, GC wrote:

A question to the group.
Is the History channel distorting the facts?
I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments .eg
Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way not Rab all)
The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

They are a few of very many I can recall.


I'm the channel is getting more and more "popular american", ie,
showing more and more only american-based fights, and those shown only
as goodie-goodie as possible...
Ads
  #12  
Old May 28th 08, 11:38 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Bob Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 681
Default History Channel

John Szalay wrote in
2:

GC wrote in
:

A question to the group.
Is the History channel distorting the facts?


IMHO:
The history channel is Notorious for being inaccurate
both in facts and film...


Y-y-you mean... there ~isn't~ a black hole in the Bermuda Triangle?!?

http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=276744

;^}
  #13  
Old May 29th 08, 12:30 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Robert Sveinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default History Channel


"展奄rdo" wrote in message
...
GC wrote:
A question to the group. Is the History channel distorting the facts?


Of course it isn't. It's just rewriting history to show the USA in a very
good light,


Robin Neillands has a paragraph in one of his books
that states that all non-American participants
in WW II have been and are being airbrushed
out of history.

How about this bit of history about Normandy?

"The stategy developed, and plan prepared for Operation Overlord by the
Allied Ground Force Commander, the British General Sir Bernard Law
Montgomery, was *flawed* in concept and failed to work in practice.
Eventually, frustrated by the failure of Montgomery's strategy and the
caution
and timidity of the British and Canadian troops, American forces under
Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton seized the initiative, revised
the plan, broke out in the West, drove back the German forces in
disarray, to win the Normandy battle-and the war.
All this they would have done much sooner if the British
and Canadians had not sat in their trenches drinking tea-American
historians never fail to mention tea-while the US forces did all the
fighting.
The outcome of the Normandy battle-so goes the allegation-would
have been far more conclusive if the aforesaid British and Canadians had not
been "timid" and "cautious" and "slow" at Falaise, thereby allowing
the German Army to escape across the Seine."

Some times referred to as "airbrushing" all non-american
fighting forces during WW II out of the scene!




  #14  
Old May 29th 08, 01:02 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Robert Sveinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default History Channel


"Neil Hoskins" wrote in message
...




B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision bombers
not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

Covered better than I could do by Robert. Personally, I feel very
uncomfortable when the Dams Raid is celebrated: it did very little to
hamper German industry


German industry was seriously affected. The quick recovery
was because of the resources used to repair the damage.
The Todt Organisation was used inside Germany for the
first time, leaving the defences on the French coast
incomplete.
Agricultural land was scrubbed of all top soil for
miles below the dams and never again during
WW II did they produce any food for the Reich.


but did kill an awful number of civilians; largely French slave labourers
IIRC. Arguably a terrorist attack.


John Sweetman in his book The Dambusters Raid states that
approximaely 1,200 civilians were killed, most of them Russian
slaves, as well as citizens of occupied Europe.

The dams were repaired rather more quickly than the
British expected, made the more easy because
the RAF did not attempt to bomb the dams under repair.
Bomber Command, in spite of claims to the contrary,
was able to hit small targets from high altitude, and could
have bombed the dams from altitude whenever they wished.
Maintenance of aim was lost.


Revisionist history should, in my view, like all forms of debate, be
encouraged. My own approach, though, is to keep my voice down when the
people who lived through it are still around. By modern standards,
Harris's "reap the whirlwind" policy


The policy that governed the targetting of Bomber Commands raids
was formulated and dispatched to Bomber Command before Harris
took up his post at BC. He had NO input into that policy.


was terrorist and genocidal,


Some author asked in his book about the air war against Germany
asked the question whether there is any difference between attacking
and killing men and women in Wermacht uniforms using the war
material and men and women in I.G.Farben/Ford/Opel uniforms, turning out the
war material.

IIRC his answer was NO!





but then again, my parents lived through the blitz, lost friends, saw
civilian bodies being dragged out of bombed buildings, etc, and therefore
have a completely different point of view.



  #15  
Old May 29th 08, 01:04 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Robert Sveinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default History Channel


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
GC wrote:

A question to the group.
Is the History channel distorting the facts?
I have noticed in recent weeks a number of totally incorrect comments
.eg Americans landing in Rabaul during WW2,(its Rab owl by the way
not Rab all) The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an
assassination..
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?

They are a few of very many I can recall.


The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing in
Rabaul during WW2.


Also incorrect.
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?







  #16  
Old May 29th 08, 01:12 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default History Channel

Robert Sveinson wrote:

The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
in Rabaul during WW2.


Also incorrect.
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?


No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s delivered
their bombs very accurately for that period.


  #17  
Old May 29th 08, 01:21 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Robert Sveinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default History Channel


"GC" wrote in message
...



My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program totally
ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision


Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
the consumers of these so called facts who want their
fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
reputable historians who are at fault as well.

There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
heroic episode of the anti submarine war.

The final raid on the Tirpitz was made by 2 squadrons
of Lancasters each carrying 1 (one) bomb each of 12,000 lbs.
and scored 3 hits, causing the Tirpitz to roll over.
Rather a precision attack, one bomb each per
Lancaster rather than the SHOT GUN method using
many smaller bombs.



I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.


As Yamamoto wore the military uniform of his country
I believe that he was a legitimate target.

There were some incomplete plans by the British
to assasinate Hitler, although nothing in the end was
done. These same British planners were not sad
at not being able to kill Hitler, as they believed
that Hitler alive suited their purposes more
than Hitler dead.
And he wore a military uniform as supreme commander
of the German armed forces.

















  #18  
Old May 29th 08, 03:24 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Robert Sveinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default History Channel


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Robert Sveinson wrote:

The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
in Rabaul during WW2.


Also incorrect.
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?


No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s
delivered their bombs very accurately for that period.


How accurately was that??
All the B-17s "toggle" their loads at the same
time and only ONE bombardier doing the aiming!
Bombs scattered over an area on the ground
equal to the area of the spread of the aircraft
in the air. Of course one can claim that at least one
or two of the hundreds of bombs dropped
hit the target so there is the proof of
"very accurately"!

The USAAF NEVER hit a target like the Tirptz,
Antheor Viaduct, various Gestapo headquartes,
Amiens prison, Saumur tunnel.

The Tirpitz, the Antheor Viaduct, Saumur Tunnel
were hit using ONE bomb
per aircraft, as opposed to the USAAF shotgun
method of bombing..

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#eaocar

The U. S. Army Air Forces entered the European war with the firm view that
specific industries and services were the most promising targets in the
enemy economy, and they believed that if these targets were to be hit
accurately, the attacks had to be made in daylight. A word needs to be said
on the problem of accuracy in attack. Before the war, the U. S. Army Air
Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development
and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in
bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin
point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach
such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many
limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke
screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated
defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver;
antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the
attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations
imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation
attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. **Bombing patterns
resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets.**
The rest spilled over




on adjacent plants, or built-up areas, or in open fields. Accuracy ranged
from poor to excellent.** When visual conditions were favorable and flak
defenses were not intense, bombing results were at their best.
Unfortunately, the major portion of bombing operations over Germany had to
be conducted under weather and battle conditions that restricted bombing
technique, and accuracy suffered accordingly. Conventionally the air forces
designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around
the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey
studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at
precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was
reached for the month of February 1945. These are important facts for the
reader to keep in mind, especially when considering the tonnages of bombs
delivered by the air forces. Of necessity a far larger tonnage was carried
than hit German installations.







  #19  
Old May 29th 08, 10:01 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
展奄rdo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,950
Default History Channel

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Sveinson wrote:
The only one of those that is totally incorrect is Americans landing
in Rabaul during WW2.

Also incorrect.
B17's being used during the day in Europe as they were precision
bombers not carpet bombers as the RAF were ?


No, that's not totally incorrect. When the weather was good B-17s delivered
their bombs very accurately for that period.


But when it came to the crunch?

Don't forget that the initial Dresden raid was supposed to have been
flown by the Americans but they cried off because of bad weather, so the
RAF stepped into the gap and played the lead role. American "precision"
bombing in that same campaign also saw the Americans bomb Prague by
mistake, although I don't know how accurately they did that. It
certainly upset the Russians, who were in residence by that time!

Essentially the Norden bomb sight worked only in clear skies - not an
everyday thing in continental Europe, unlike California where it was
developed.

Also, to quote:

"The trouble was, precision was another Norden myth. From 20,000 feet,
2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile or more from their targets --
even with the best of bombsights.

Meanwhile, the bombsight itself had been reclassified from secret to
merely confidential two years before Lang's infamy. In 1942 it was
downgraded to restricted, the lowest classification.

By then we were switching to the English tactic of saturation bombing. A
bomber armada flew over a city. The lead plane signaled the drop and
they pulverized everything below -- hoping to catch occasional military
targets in the general carnage."

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1004.htm
--
Moving things in still pictures!
  #20  
Old May 29th 08, 10:51 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
arjay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default History Channel

"Robert Sveinson" wrote in message
...
"GC" wrote in message
...

My question on the B17's probably related to the fact the program totally
ignored the Dams,the Tirpitz,etc all involving a touch of precision


Yes the so called pundits with the most resources to get A message
out to the public are the ones ignoring the facts, but it is also
the consumers of these so called facts who want their
fables fed to them by spoon rather than consulting
reputable historians who are at fault as well.

There was that fairey tale about U-571 which claimed
that the US Navy intercepted secret signals from a U-Boat,
decyphered the signals and using these spectacular results
sent a force and captured said U-Boat. A true work of fiction,
however people who saw this fairey tale asked me
in all seriousness whether I had heard about this
heroic episode of the anti submarine war.

The final raid on the Tirpitz was made by 2 squadrons
of Lancasters each carrying 1 (one) bomb each of 12,000 lbs.
and scored 3 hits, causing the Tirpitz to roll over.
Rather a precision attack, one bomb each per
Lancaster rather than the SHOT GUN method using
many smaller bombs.

I figured the shooting down of Yamamoto whilst obviously a payback was
done during wartime hence not an assassination but I see your point.


As Yamamoto wore the military uniform of his country
I believe that he was a legitimate target.

There were some incomplete plans by the British
to assasinate Hitler, although nothing in the end was
done. These same British planners were not sad
at not being able to kill Hitler, as they believed
that Hitler alive suited their purposes more
than Hitler dead.
And he wore a military uniform as supreme commander
of the German armed forces.


For what this is worth ...
The man wore a military uniform only between 1914 and 1918 when he served
with the16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment.
During WW 2 his uniform marked him as leader of the NSDAP. That is, it was
a party uniform. Contemporary photographs show Goebbels wearing much the
same uniform at many rallies.
Hitler's claim to command the German armed forces rested on his accepted
position as Leader of the whole German nation.
Churchill, on the other hand, wore military uniforms rather often. But (as
a lurker's passing acknowledgment that this is an aviation newsgroup) I
can't remember pics of him wearing an R.A.F. uniform showing a rank higher
than Air Commodore.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Battle 360 on HIstory Channel miket6065 Aviation Photos 0 February 17th 08 07:15 PM
Battle 360 on History Channel miket6065 Naval Aviation 0 February 17th 08 07:14 PM
Spitfire Ace on History channel keepitrunning Home Built 0 January 1st 06 05:57 PM
Ed Rasimus-Saw You On The History Channel [email protected] Military Aviation 1 June 15th 04 05:50 PM
History Channel Rosspilot Piloting 6 July 26th 03 03:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.